Welcome to the new Becker-Posner Blog, maintained by the University of Chicago Law School.

02/12/2007

Is Sex Selection of Births Undesirable? BECKER

In China in 2005, 118 boys were born for every 100 girls born. This ratio is far above the normal biological ratio of about 106 boys to 100 girls. The sexual disparity in China has resulted from a combination of low birth rates, a preference in China for boys when parents only have one or two children, and the spread of ultrasound techniques in that country that allow the sex of fetuses to be identified and then aborted if parents do not like the sex. Similar trends have emerged in India and South Korea as well.
More sophisticated and expensive methods permit parents to raise their chances of a male baby even before a woman becomes pregnant. Considered most reliable is a method that involves in vitro fertilization, drugs to stimulate the mother‚Äôs ovaries, surgery, and other steps. The total cost can exceed $20,000, so this method clearly is only available to richer persons.
Are there good reasons to object to sex selection, either by abortion or more sophisticated methods? On Feb. 1 the Committee on Ethics of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (the ACOG) did issue an opinion objecting on the grounds that it is unethical for physicians to participate in sex selection by parents that was based not on potential for sex-linked genetic disorders, but solely on family balancing of personal preferences. This opinion about the ethics of sexual selection applied "regardless of the timing of the selection (i.e., preconception or post conception) or the stage of development of the embryo or fetus".
Such an opinion seems strange in light of the general support by physicians and the Supreme Court of abortions by parents "solely" to satisfy their personal preferences about timing or number of children. What is so different about sex-selected abortions that would lead the ACOG with its over 51,000 members who provide health care to women to oppose abortions to satisfy parental desires for additional boys or girls while supporting the general right to abortion? The ACOG tries to provide an answer by claiming that sex selection through any method may "ultimately support sexist practices."
It is not clear what the ACOG means by sexist practices, but all the evidence on sexual preferences in the United States and other richer countries indicates an overwhelming desire for variety-boys and girls- rather than a strong preference for either sex. So sex-selected abortions in these countries is unlikely to have much of an effect on the overall sex ratio, although it would affect the distribution of boys and girls in different families.
I concentrate my remaining discussion on the implications of sex-selected abortions in countries where it raises the number of boys relative to girls. China, South Korea, and other countries have tried to implement control over sex selection by making it illegal to use ultrasound techniques to select the sex of children. However, these regulations are notoriously difficult to implement since doctors may say "congratulations" when an ultrasound test reveals a boy, and remain silent when the fetus is a girl.
Abortions of girl fetuses would reduce average family size if parents who prefer boys would end up with larger families than they would like because they cannot control the sex of their offspring. The effect on family size could go the other way, however, if the fear of having girls discourages parents from having additional children. These effects on family size could be important, but I ignore them in the following discussion and concentrate on the effects of a lower number of girl babies relative to boys compared to the biological natural girl-boy ratio of a little below 50-50.
One might expect parents who abort fetuses of sexes they do not want to treat their children better than they would otherwise since they now are satisfied with the sexes of their children. In such cases, sex-selected abortions against girls would improve rather than worsen the average treatment of girls since parents would be happier with the girls they have than if they had girls who were not really wanted. It is no surprise, for example, that orphanages in China predominantly have girls (and some handicapped boys), given the preference for boys in the traditional Chinese culture.
What about the overall effects in a society of skewing the sex ratio of births toward boys? The fewer girls who are born presumably would be better off since they would be better educated, and in other ways better treated by parents who want them. This would be reinforced if the effect of sex selected abortions is to lower the overall birth rate since it is well established that families with fewer children invest more in each one, girls as well as boys.
As children become adults in cohorts with a high ratio of boys, the advantage of girls and women increases since they are scarcer. It is claimed that young women in China are already at a premium as potential mates because strong sex-selection has been going on ever since the one child policy was introduced in the early 1980's. Prior to the spread of ultrasound techniques, sex selection occurred through sending girls to orphanages, neglect, and in some case even engaging in female infanticide.
To be sure, if the value of girls as wives and girlfriends, and in other ways, rises because they are scarcer, then the value of boys as husbands and boyfriends tends to fall. However, it is not apparent why that should call for policies that prevent sex-selected techniques, unless the interests of men were motivating these policies. To use an analogy, a shift of demand in an economy toward services and away from manufacturing because of a shift in "preferences" toward services- as has occurred in the United States and other rich countries- benefits women relative to men since women are more likely to work in services than are men. Yet no one would claim that society should prevent such preferences because they help (indirectly) one sex over another.
The great statistician and biologist, R. A. Fisher, used a celebrated biological analysis to explain why the sex ratio remains close to 50-50 in non-human species. An economic analysis based on incentives gives results that are related to Fisher's result. An improvement in the position of women due to a decline in the number of girls relative to boys leads to some correction in the sex ratio as parental choices respond in the long run to the more favorable position of girls. If women are in greater demand as wives and in the economy when they are in scarcer supply, some parents will decide that having girls has advantages, possibly through receiving generous bride prices when daughters marry. This would shift "preferences" toward having girls. The long run outcome would not necessarily be the biological natural ratio of a little more boy births than girl births, but it should be closer to that ratio than the current ratios in some Asian countries.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Me, scientist and studied economist.

I know for sure that THE LIVING GOD exists,
without any doubt.

And I know further, that most economists never studied and study until today the foundations and limits of science.

Good and right thinking is one of the most arduous tasks.

Year after year, 95 per cent of students ignore advisedly this crucial point (i.e. waste of time).

Becker argues about ...
Is Sex Selection of Births Undesirable?

Abortion is merciless killing of defenceless
lives.

Is this (environment) variable in your formula, theory, doctrine integrated? Please include it, 'cause the real world is far more beautiful and complex than game theories.

The big problem for most scientist is this:
The assumptions are wrong, in parts or entirely.

Yours!
Ginger
Poor Becker, poor Posner.

Your model is totally wrong.
Every human life has the same value.
Absolutely the same. Same price. The most extreme price.
And before THE LIVING GOD everyone will be equal.
The rich will be poorer and the poor will be richer. ;)

While I'd agree that sex selection is generally an unattractive concept in a nation with a strong national policy of one child only, it's unlikely that an academic conclusion to that effect will become practical policy.

One area overlooked by most Americans is that in third world countries w/o SS or retirement programs the next of kin ARE the parent's only hope of support in their declining years. The tendency for even the poorest families to have large families is the hope that enough will survive and even prosper that they can help their parents. If China wanted to address a sex selection problem their best shot would be that of implementing an SS or other retirement program.

But! with a "one child" policy China's numbers are even worse than that of the US and other aging populations in having too few "kids" coming up to support the retiring generation.

BTW isn't it something that even in this "richest of countries" that SS which pays about enough to maintain a very modest home in a low cost area and perhaps cover the maintenance of an aging vehicle, is "in trouble?" Wouldn't it seem that toiling for 40 years or more in America's productive mines would provide a cabin and a car for fifteen years?

Jack, Do you really believe that S.S. is even going to be there in the years ahead? As for pensions that all of us have paid into over the years is a phantom and delusion. Even the pension insurance that we have paid into the "Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp." is on the verge of bankruptcy. And where does the true problem lie? Corporate Malfeascence in the boardroom. Just ask yourself where all the new millionaires and billionaires are coming from, not too mention their new found wealth. As for the sex determination of offspring, they are the only ones who are going to be able to afford it. As for the rest of us, keep the "Delta Pill" close at hand.

There seem to be a lot of different factors contributing to the tragedy of female infanticide in China and India. What I can not figure out is why these factors still seem to have so much affect on the populations of these countries. I am trying to get an answer to why many Eastern cultures still have it engrained in them that females are bad and males good, when this concept, though very apparent in the past in Western culture, seems to have disappeared? In western culture (up until very recently), like in eastern cultures, the man was the one who carried the family name, earned the money, received the dowry, etc, etc. So male babies were preferred in western culture. So why are the ratios balanced naturally between male and female, with very few cases of female infanticide in western culture? What is the difference, developmentally, between the two that makes such a big difference? I have been trying to figure this out, so if anyone knows, respond below, or contact me through email. Thanks!

N.E. Hat: Good questions and I'll hazard a shot at answering some of them:

Jack, Do you really believe that S.S. is even going to be there in the years ahead?

........ I'd say it's primarily up to the political WILL of the electorate. Young folk running around (without an "I voted" sticker to their name) and assuming SS will be stolen from them are sealing there fate.

...... Is it a money problem???? Ha! The AVERAGE per capita income in our is $45,000 per capita..... ie the AVERAGE four person household AVERAGES $180,000 of household income. I'd say that's PLENTY to provide a sound SS program.

....... But? let's say you've been trained in the "scarcity" of financial resources in our wealthy country and that your's or most or your friend's household income is more like the MEDIAN household income of $45,000 for the entire household..... then you'd be prone to "believe" and highly susceptible to the agenda of those who propagate the propaganda of scarcity and that we can't possibly "afford" SS or even the universal health care that IS provided by 30 other, less prosperous nations.

As for pensions that all of us have paid into over the years is a phantom and delusion. Even the pension insurance that we have paid into the "Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp." is on the verge of bankruptcy.

......... Indeed! And after viewing this history; WERE we an honest country, how difficult would it be to design a stainless steel piggy bank for EACH working person to carry throughout his working career that each of his employers would deposit a contribution to HIS pension which would no longer be any part of the corporate assets and would be beyond being an asset of any real or faux bankruptcies?

And where does the true problem lie? Corporate Malfeascence in the boardroom.

...... Yup! And how much longer is this heap going to be swept under the carpet? When is the average duck going to lean out the window and yell, "I'm mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!?)

Just ask yourself where all the new millionaires and billionaires are coming from, not too mention their new found wealth.

........ Recently three steel companies "went bankrupt" and their workers took a HUGE screwing wiping out 90% of their pension. After, some corporate raider put the "remnants" back together and "created" several billion of "added value" in one year. Coincidentally? the couple billion was just about what the pension fund was short.

As for the sex determination of offspring, they are the only ones who are going to be able to afford it. As for the rest of us, keep the "Delta Pill" close at hand.

...... Ha! No... too easy and 'no fun'! Here consider this: The "boomer" generation has dominated fashion and politics since the 60's, largely w/o even trying. As many approach the time of expected SS, Medicare benefits w/o adequate resources to actually retire I would not bet heavily on a government that CAN spend half a trillion on an "elective" "war" getting away with taking anything away from them.

.. Those generations younger than the boomers had better watchout to see that those like the Bush admin don't take it all for these selfish generation that is so willing to pass massive D E B T on to the next generation.

"So why are the ratios balanced naturally between male and female, with very few cases of female infanticide in western culture? What is the difference, developmentally, between the two that makes such a big difference? I have been trying to figure this out, so if anyone knows, respond below, or contact me through email. Thanks!"

.......... I partially answered this question in my post just above your's. Consider, in America "social security" in old age is primarily a composite of SS, Pensions, Medicare, Medicaid, subsidized senior housing and or tax breaks. Countries not having these "safety nets" for oldster rely far more heavily on those of the next generation for their support.

...... Add in that in the US male-female income potential is nearly at par and you've most of the answer as to why parents here wouldn't have a strong bias either way. Also, consider that those who're "disappointed" by a boy or girl on the first try are free to try again, while in theory, China has but one "try".

..... I think it IS hard for Americans with a host of options and "rights" to envision what life w/o these supports would be like.

Jack, You can't quite lay it all at the doorstep of the "Boomers", I'm one of the last or tail end of that generation and to tell you the truth we're running scared as well; not too mention fearful, paranoid, and living in a state of high anxiety about this. Most of us remember being stuck out on limb in place called Indochina only to have cut off behind us. When it comes to money, most of these so called businessmen have even less scruples.

Jack, You can't quite lay it all at the doorstep of the "Boomers", I'm one of the last or tail end of that generation and to tell you the truth we're running scared as well; not too mention fearful, paranoid, and living in a state of high anxiety about this.

......... One of the best insights I've had into the US came from a British "America watcher" journalist that I hosted many years ago. I asked what the US "looked like" from his vantage point in the UK. His response (at the time using our delayed response to environmental issues) was that America so often went right to the brink of disaster (like one of those toy cars that won't fall off a table) and then made a surprisingly hasty 90 or 180 degree turn. He's been right a LOT! Note the sudden change in Congress to our elective warmongery in the M/E.

I'd count "boomers running scared" as a strong political base. Next? I'll predict that the wage/wealth gap that threatens what's left of our "democracy" will join with health care and SS as major issues of our VERY lengthy Presidential campaign.

"Most of us remember being stuck out on limb in place called Indochina only to have cut off behind us."

.hmmm, I suppose there is still much to be said, and learned, from that deadly fiasco that has not been learned by those who partied and were socially passed through Yale on Cliff notes and frat house cheat sheets?

"When it comes to money, most of these so called businessmen have even less scruples."

David you seem to speak as if our own society were predominately comprised of four person "Ozzie and Harriet" "traditional" families, but there are today, more living singly than otherwise.

As for loneliness, starting off with equal numbers of females, a host of factors including riskier occupations for men, high rates of gun deaths and our predilection toward warmongering results in there being far more older women who live alone and might be the major victims of the loneliness you mention. BUT! it seems not necessarily the case as older women socialize more than men and may well not be as "lonely" as the stats of living alone would indicate.

As for fears of surpluses of single men "destabilizing" a nation, I wonder whether it's true, and wonder whether China would have more than the US where men are often single through the the "unstable" years of their young adulthood and in between their serial marriages?

The subject of sex selection and the effect of a sex bias on a society seems to big and amorphous to come to much of any conclusion.

Greeting. All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
I am from Grenada and also now'm speaking English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "Estimate the equity risk premium for countries and a world index over a year interval."